Final blog from Tearfund: the first HIF project to complete!

;

This, dear readers and project stakeholders, is the final blog that I will be writing for this project. The final final report (all snazzy and professionally edited and formatted!), which details both the research and innovative good practice that has been undertaken as part of this project, is now available for review here. This report and its thirteen annexes are recommended as essential reading for any humanitarian and development practitioners that are grappling with issues related to monitoring and beneficiary accountability, especially for projects which are remotely managed and implemented in insecure environments. I truly hope that it will be of interest and use to you as readers and stakeholders and am keen to hear your thoughts.

Whilst there is a focus on the issues and concerns related to project monitoring and beneficiary accountability (some of which have been highlighted in previousblogs), there is also a substantial focus on the existing and innovative good practices that are recommended to address these issues. A section dedicated to each: remote project monitoring good practice and remote beneficiary accountability good practice, is included and also contains a practical checklist which summarises each individual recommendation. It is anticipated that the recommendations included in these sections can assist humanitarian and development practitioners, providing practical, realistic and tested means by which project monitoring and beneficiary accountability can be promoted and safeguarded in remote management settings.

It was recommended by the Humanitarian Innovations Fund, the agency supporting this project, that I might utilise this final blog to initiate interactive discussion regarding some of these innovative good practice recommendations. To that end, I’m linking the two summary checklists to the blog and fully encourage you to have a read of them and to post any feedback in response to the individual recommendations proposed:

• Summary Checklist of RBA Recommendations
• Summary Checklist of RPM Recommendations

One of the key recommendations arising from this project is that remote management cannot be considered as an ‘add-on’ to standard programming structures. It was the experience or observation of several project stakeholders that remote management structures are often added on to standard ways of programming or to standard projects, with limited time taken to review or adjust programmes to the new structure of implementation or management that is being used This research highlights that remote management, to work effectively, must be incorporated into the design of projects (including their monitoring, evaluation and accountability plans) from their very inception. This will often entail substantial changes to standard project or programme design; to the scope or size of programming, and; to the recruitment procedures and essential experience and skills needed for key roles.

Developing a policy that supports remote management structures is one practical method for ensuring that the necessary consideration and review of project and programme structure for remote management is undertaken. Such a policy or review process not only ensures that project or programme designs are necessarily targeted to a remote management setting, but it also ensures that the necessary programmatic structures and support systems are in place to promote quality programming for remotely managed settings. These recommendations are considered in detail in Sections 7.2.1., 7.2.2. and 7.2.6. of this report. Do have a read through and let me know your thoughts. Previous blogs have served as a useful forum for interactive discussion and I’d be very interested to hear from you again regarding these innovations.

I’ll be signing off from writing any new blogs, but am keen to keep the online discussion in full swing so I’ll be sure to get back to your posts in response to today’s blog. I’m heading on leave for a couple of weeks now and will be back shortly after mid-March! I’ll enjoy getting back to you then and further developing this important discussion.

Happy reading.

As ever,

Bryony Norman – Project Coordinator